Flat renovation - help a complete novice out!

chunkytfg

rlkk wrote: »

Lease is 67 years. Freeholder has apparently quoted £25,000 for an extension but I haven’t seen written proof of this yet. Does that figure sound reasonable? The estate agent seemed to think it was pretty high, but I appreciate they may just be telling me what I want to hear.

Under 80 years means it is always going to be very pricey to extend it and also unless the previous owner starts the extension process before you passing the right to extend to you in the sale you have to own the property for 2 years before you can extend it yourself. So thats then 65 years and a little bit more expensive.

FTB mixed with really short lease mixed with a wreck of a house would mean you'd need to be very very brave to take it on yourself and unless you can do a lot of the work yourself you'll likely struggle to recoup your outlay.

As has been said by others, there is a reason properties like this don't sell to developers! I'm in the process of buying one myself but being pretty handy myself and having a retired DIY Guru for a father means I can not need to worry about the labour costs of renovations.

rlkk

Thanks chunkytfg for your very informative reply. Really appreciate everyone’s opinions and expertise. I know I am inexperienced and naive, which is exactly why I wanted to seek advice from people with more experience on here. Thank you all

AlexMac

In the light of the above, I'm assuming you are getting this flat for at least £100k under a reasonable price for a perfect local one-bedder with a long lease?

If so, and as regards this being an over-ambitious project; be brave! My 1st buy was a Victorian wreck, with a dodgy roof, worse electrics and no heating. While we got a 100% mortgage from the Greater London Council (which Thatcher abolished) and a "Home Improvement Grant" towards the biggies from the local Council (them was the days, eh; when public bodies actually helped poorer young couples!)...
...but we had to learn how to do a lot ourselves.

With absolutely no experience and despite being in a white collar job, we learned how to strip saggy lath and plaster ceilings and nail up plasterboard (altho' I got a pro to skim em!), lift, relay, replace and strip floorboards (which I believe is back in fashion 40 years on!), strip and replace kitchen units and worktops, as well as restoring overpainted cornices and roses, papering and painting a three storey gaff throughout.

So can you! (or do I mean "So, can you?")

Good luck

ruthber

This sounds like it could be a bargain and worth a lot more eventually. Pain now, gain later. We recently extended a lease on a flat from 65 years (at which point it was almost impossible to sell as mortgages are not available) and it cost approx £22K. We had a surveyor acting for us and a solicitor and it was worth it - these professionals do actually save you money in the long run.

eddddy

With most leasehold flats, it would be the freeholder who is responsible for maintenance and repairs of the buildings structure - not you (the leaseholder).

What does the lease say?

rlkk

Thanks all, especially for the advice from people who’ve done similar before.

My (limited) understanding is that the freeholder is responsible for organising repairs, but the leaseholder still has to pay, through a maintenance charge or otherwise. Freeholder has historically attempted to set up a maintenance agreement on the building, but people in the other flat are understandably reluctant to contribute to all the repairs that need doing to the ground floor one. So chances are I’d have to pay for all the work before a maintenance arrangement could be set up. This is something I’m waiting for clarification on from the freeholder.

Happy to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood any of the above.

eddddy

rlkk wrote: »

My (limited) understanding is that the freeholder is responsible for organising repairs, but the leaseholder still has to pay, through a maintenance charge or otherwise.

The lease will specify how costs the covered. Typically, they will be shared amongst all the leaseholders.

rlkk wrote: »

Freeholder has historically attempted to set up a maintenance agreement on the building,

The lease is the maintenance agreement - nothing else is required.

If the freeholder isn't maintaining the building, the leaseholders should be taking legal action against the freeholder.

You should think carefully about buying a lease where the freeholder is breaching the lease (by not maintaining the building) - you might end up having to take expensive and time consuming legal action.

rlkk wrote: »

... but people in the other flat are understandably reluctant to contribute to all the repairs that need doing to the ground floor one.

If their lease says they have to pay... then they have to pay. If they don't, the freeholder should be taking legal action against them.

(I'm understandably reluctant to pay my income tax... but it doesn't mean I don't have to pay it.)

rlkk wrote: »

So chances are I’d have to pay for all the work before a maintenance arrangement could be set up.

As above, the currently existing leases will be the maintenance agreement - nothing more is needed.

rlkk

Sorry, I think I may be confusing the terms ‘maintenance agreement’ and ‘service charge’. Like many flats in the area, maintenance is currently on an as and when basis. Leaseholders have to be consulted on work costing more than £250. The freeholder has tried to introduce a service charge, but people in the top floor flat aren’t happy about being the only ones contributing (ground floor flat is a repossession - makes the whole thing even more complicated, I know), so unwilling to agree to the new terms. As far as I can see, ground floor flat would need to be refurbished before there’s a hope of introducing a service charge for future maintenance.

Either way, I’ll definitely be studying the lease carefully before progressing any further (currently waiting for a copy). Thanks for the heads up.

eddddy

rlkk wrote: »

Like many flats in the area, maintenance is currently on an as and when basis.

That's fine - but it doesn't sound like it's actually happening with this flat, because work isn't being done.

rlkk wrote: »

Leaseholders have to be consulted on work costing more than £250.

Yes - so why isn't the freeholder doing that?

rlkk wrote: »

The freeholder has tried to introduce a service charge, but people in the top floor flat aren’t happy about being the only ones contributing (ground floor flat is a repossession - makes the whole thing even more complicated, I know), so unwilling to agree to the new terms.

That's very confused.

There are no "new terms" to agree - everything was agreed in the original lease.

The top floor might not be happy about paying their share of the service charge, but they still have to pay it.

The repossession is irrelevant to this issue. Service charges are still due from both flats, even though one's been repossessed. (Depending on the Freeholder's actions, the arrears for the repossessed flat might get paid by the bank, or by the new purchaser)

rlkk wrote: »

As far as I can see, ground floor flat would need to be refurbished before there’s a hope of introducing a service charge for future maintenance.

Why?

The people upstairs agreed to pay for maintenance to the building when they bought the lease. Why shouldn't they pay what they agreed to pay?


There are millions of leasehold flats in England and Wales, and there are well established laws dealing with all this kind of stuff.

You should just follow the law, rather than trying to make up your own set of rules.

rlkk

Thanks again for the advice. Not trying to make up my own set of rules, just seems too good to be true that the freeholder might have to pay for some of the work! Seems like I can’t do much until I hear back from them. Thank you for sharing your knowledge - very useful